The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/06/2004, COMMUNICATION 1 - RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2003 COUNCIL ACTION TO DENY THE BRIDGE STREET PROJECT WITHOUT PR M. ING AGENDA ��1 DATE - ITEM #�� c .; fi = communication 10ty of San Luis Obispo DATE: December 15, 2003 TO: Mayor& Members of the City Council / FROM: John Ewan, City Council Members W/ SUBJECT: Reconsideration of the December 2, 2003 Council Action to Deny the Bridge Street project without Prejudice I am formally requesting reconsideration of the Council's action to deny the Bridge Street project without prejudice. The Council should direct staff to coordinate with the Bridge Street Partners the return of the original project for further Council review. Further review of this project proposal would provide the Council with an opportunity to give direction to the Partners on changes and/or modifications that would make the project acceptable to the Council and community. This direction was requested the night of December 2° , but due to the late hour(I believe) not given. A concerned community and myself would appreciate your consideration of this request. Comm. I _Allen Settle- Bridge Street Project From: "Bryce Engstrom" <bryce @ engstrom arch itecture.com> To: <asettle@slocity.org> Date: Mon,Jan 5, 2004 5:53 PM Subject: Bridge Street Project Dear Mr. Settle, I am an architect and general building contractor from Arroyo Grande but up until the last three years, was a resident of SLO city for over 15 years. I attended both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on the Bridge Street project and was frankly flabergasted at the reactions from the City Council regarding issues such as flooding, noise,parking and open space. I have attended my share of these meetings over the years and have never seen council members literally come out on the attack before staff had even really begun giving its presentation the way they did that night. It seemed clear to me that minds had already been made up prior the start of the meeting and that decisions had been made not on the facts but on anecdotal, self-serving, and overly-emotional testimony. I find this very disappointing and a poor example of leadership in the council. I implore you to vote tomorrow night to give this project a second chance. All of the issues of concern on this project are entirely mitigatable and examples of similar mitigations given to other projects in these areas of concern are all over town. By sending the wrong signal to other potential developers, you may not just be voting this project down, but many others like it that will simply not be attempted or moved to greener pastures. I noticed the Tribune ranked this story among the top 10 of the year so know that the entire county is looking to the SLO City Council to put aside political expediency and show some true courage and leadership in doing something about the escalating housing crisis not only in this county but in the entire state. Sincerely, Bryce Engstrom -E�roour�clL .TCDD DIR RECEIVED I_L� -CAO -1N DIR ��N 0 ti 2��4 �ACAO 2"FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY jt PW DIR �� CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK DE T HEAD 2'REC DIR �GUTIL DIR —)- /R DIR RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATEITEM *_nMra I Allen Settle- Bridge Street project _^l^T Page 1 From: "leslie" <Ieslie@slocbe.com> To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org> Date: Mon,Jan 5, 2004 .5:02 PM Subject: Bridge Street project I am writing this as an individual, as a resident of the City of San Luis Obispo since 1979 and a homeowner since that time. I am not representing any formal group or organization. RECEIVED I attended a presentation of the Bridge Street project by the architect JAN 0 i, 2004 and the owner before this project came before the Council the first time. I was very impressed with the work and the thought that had gone SLO CITY CLERK into this. Frankly I was disappointed when this project was not approved, but I am pleased to see you are reconsidering it. There is no perfect project, but this one is an excellent example of "thinking outside the box" and accomplishes many goals of the city re: workforce housing. OF COURSE it may be noisy, what do you expect in such an area? Living near an airport is also noisy but we build million dollar homes tehre nonetheless. Perhaps the buyers could sign a note stating that they are aware of the noise and accept it as part of the neighborhood. The flooding concerns have already been addressed. The neighbors I believe were under the wrong impression of who wil live there. Its my understanding that these would be owner.-occupied units, not rentals. I think this little neighborhood could turn into a real neat little RED FILE place in a few years and urge you to approve it. It's a small MEING AGENDA development by a local guy who is trying to do the socially right thing. DATE f ITEM I' Let's encourage him. This little project is not going to destroy our city or impact downtown or have any adverse effects that may come from other projects like Dalidio, Costco, etc. Let's not sweat the small stuff here. Thank you. Sincerely, LESLIE HALLS 1359 Oceanaire Drive %COUNCIL TCDD DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 /C=.O P'FIN DIR (805) 541-6368 -Z--ACAO ,FIRE CHIEF Zw-Ai t09NEY 21PW DIR rCLERKIORIG 2POLICECHF O DE T HEADS 2-REC DIR - ZYTIL DIR —_ Z FIR DIR !Allen Settle-Bridge Street Project Page 1 From: Jim and Judy Nielsen <slojn @charter.net> To: <asettle@slocity.org> Date: Mon, Jan 5, 2004 9:21 PM Subject: Bridge Street Project Dear Commissioner Settle: We understand the provision that makes it possible to reconsider this project but are suspicious as to what has transpired for it to be brought to the table a month after a decision was made. Was it the media eg:Tribune or intimidation/creative persuasion of the project group? Or rumors of their discussion with neighboring communities. The significant issues of flooding, safety and parking cannot be modified or negotiated. It simply is the nature of an unusable parcel of property. We are confident that YOU will stand behind your previous "NO" vote. If in a moment of weakness the commission were to approve this project as proposed, would not the owners sue the city if persons or property were harmed due to flooding or entrance/exit of emergency vehicles? We are extremely concerned about the lack of low cost housing (although this is not necessarily the case) in SLO but not at the expense of placing families in harm's way due to an eager to sell property owner and associates. Thank you for your consideration. Jim and Judy Nielsen RECEIVED RED FILE JAN 0 Ci 2004 ING AGENDA SLO CIN CLERK DAT _ ITEM #ern t I n ouNCI , CDD DIR f CAO 'FIN DIR Z ACAO ,0-FIRE CHIEF r�ArEORNEY pw DIR . T CLERKIORIG IZ POLICE CHF REC DIR ❑ DDEEPPT.HEAAD�S� VEILDIR "- � �ri 1 Dlr1 LEa.Pr' 'e� Ra`.econsideration of the Bn" Street Pro . ._ � ject � Page 1 f From: Lee Price RECEIVED To: , Slohof2348@aol.com Date: 1/5/0411:31 AM JAN 0 6 2004 Subject: Re: econsideration of the Bridge Street Project Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman, SLO CITY CLERK As the City Clerk, I received a copy of your communication to the Council about the Bridge Street Project. I would like to clarify for you what the Council will consider tomorrow night. For clarification, please be advised that the City Council will NOT be reconsidering the Bridge Street project tomorrow night(1/6/04) as was reported in this weekend's Tribune and broadcasted on the radio today. To clarify what is on the agenda tomorrow night, please be advised that the Council will consider a request by Council Member John Ewan to reconsider its December 2nd action to deny the project without prejudice. The ONLY THING the Council can discuss and vote on tomorow evening is whether or not the Council wants to reconsider the project. That means there must be three or more votes in favor of doing so, and if there is a majority of the Council who favors a motion to reconsider,then the Bridge Street Project will be set for a future Council meeting, at which time the Bridge Street Partners will be invited to come back and review their project with the Council, answer additional Council questions and take input from the Council. Tomorrow night's meeting will not be a public hearing NOR may the Council legally discuss the pros and cons of the project. In fact; State Law prohibits the Council from discussing anything more than what is on the posted agenda and that is this: Discuss Possible Reconsideration of the December 2, 2003 Council Action to Deny the Bridge Street Project without Prejudice. The Ralph M. Brown Act (opening meeting law) and the Council's own adopted policiesand procedures prohibit discussing anything other than what is set forth on the agenda. The time for the public to comment on the Bridge Street Project and the time for the Council to vote on whether or not the project should proceed would be when, and if,the Council decides to reconsider the project and directs staff to place the matter on an upcoming Council agenda: If you have any questions, please let me know. CQUNCIL 'CDD DIR Lee Price, CMC n CAO 2'FIN DIR City Clerk r ]-ACAO DIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo ,aATrCRNEY J2'PN1 DIR (price@slocity.org kYCLERK/ORIG , . POLICE CHF 805.781.7104 ❑ D�.lRT HEADS L�'REC DIR nd �xh0 ?:�UTIL DIR >>><Slohof2348@aol.com>01/04/04 06:44PM >>> 2�Hil D I R I truly hope this time this project will be given the proper approval. The` issues discussed by your council regarding flooding, compatibility with neighbors and parking were convincingly addesssed by your staff and the applicant- what findings did you make that you've not shared with the public? It is also a fundamental responsibility of local government to do what is right.- My husband and I live near Corrida and Sendero-so we am very familiar with the area.There are seven parking lots between South street and Bridge street not even counting street parking on Beebee and Bridge streets. I can't imagine someone parking on Exposition and walking through the open space or even Meadow park when parking in those lots or the two streets is so much closer- - 1 don't believe parking is an issue! Regarding flooding -The information provided by the applicant and your own RED FILE staff addressed this issue- that these homes are to be built so that flooding is mitigated. I lived on Oceanaire in '73 when there was flooding, due to my MEETING AGENDA understanding ,that the creeks had not been cleared.The tract of homes in mypA� t,�_/,rL[Et— ITEM i E 4 ��e Pre W econsideration of the BrF Street Project , _Page 2 neighborhood were built in the 80's and no flooding has occurred-what mitigation was taken for these homes?The neighbors that were so vocal about the f looding (one in particular) now has her house for sale. She's also the one that stood in my home and said to me that"I don't give a-----about affordable housing, I worked very hard to get what I have!" I believe she is another NIMBY. I just watched a documentary about housing being built on marshes and flood plains - the technology is there why aren't we using it? Councilman Schwartz you said we have been unable to make the City significantly more flood safe than it was'in '73-why not? Compatibility with neighbors- Do you really believe that even though this area is zoned manufacturing that the current neighbors -the ones complaining- won't complain when a project allowed in the zoning is proposed? In the words of a prominent former planning director-maybe it's time those manufacturing businesses moved. Honorable councilmembers please look at the area on South -it's housing and office buildings-consider the small area that is manufacutring - it doesn't seem logical to me that manufacturing is still there. Also please don't try to convince me that there is no other manufacturing-zoned areas in our city- if not-why not? - its in your purview to fix that situation - how about the Sacramento-Capitolio area? Once again I urge your honorable council to do the right thing! It doesn't make sense to me that this perfectly perfect project should go to cities to the north and south of us! Sincerely Tony and Norma Hoffman 2348 Sendero SLO CC: asettle@slocity.org kschwartz; Draze, Mike; Dunsmore,Phil; Ewan,John; Hampian, Ken; john@sloart.com; Mandeville, John; Mulholland, Christine; Reynolds, Diane; Romero, Dave Lee Trice- Re: Bridge Street _ __.__ Page From: <ANCARTER@aol.com> To: <LPrice@slocity.org> Date: 1/5/04 12:16PM RECEIVED Subject: Re: Bridge Street Lee, JAN 0 6 2004 Thanks for the clarification on Bridge Street. SLo Cllr CLERK If I want to urge Council to reconsider their action, should I speak about this during Public Comment or will I be allowed to speak about this during Council Communications? I know other people will be attending the meeting to speak on Bridge Street so Dave Romero needs to think about when he wants to allow people to have their 3 minutes. Andrew Carter CC: <dromero@slocity.org> RED FILE - NI �IjN�G AGENDA GCouNC L Fe-CDD DIR DATE�1`'t�`_' ITEM #2,=o ❑"CAO Q'FIN DIR _'ACAO 5T FIRE CHIEF Z"ATT0RN=V RN1 DIR �'CLERK/ORIG B'POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT ' E.ADS Z�REC DIR ❑ ZUTIL DIR (?IR DIR Lee Brice=Re: Bridge Street _ .,__.. Page 1 From: Lee Price To: ANCARTER@aol.com Date: 1/5/04 10:47AM Subject: Re: Bridge Street Andrew,for clarification, please be advised that the City Council will NOT be reconsidering the Bridge Street project tomorrow night (1/6/04) as was reported in this weekend's Tribune and broadcasted on the radio today. To clarify what is on the agenda tomorrow night, please be advised that the Council will consider a request by Council Member John Ewan to reconsider its December 2nd action to deny the project without prejudice. The ONLY THING the Council can discuss and vote on tomorow evening is whether or not the Council wants to reconsider the project. That means there must be three or more votes in favor of doing so, and if there is a majority of the Council who favors a motion to reconsider,then the Bridge Street Project will be set for a future Council meeting, at which time the Bridge Street Partners will be invited to come back and review their project with the Council, answer additional Council questions and take input from the Council. Tomorrow night's meeting will not be a public hearing NOR may the Council legally discuss the pros and cons of the project. In fact, State Law prohibits the Council from discussing anything more than what is on the posted agenda and that is this: Discuss Possible Reconsideration of the December 2, 2003 Council Action to Deny the Bridge Street Project without Prejudice. The Ralph M. Brown Act (opening meeting law) and the Council's own adopted policies and procedures prohibit discussing anything other than what is set forth on the agenda. The time for the public to comment on the Bridge Street Project and the time for the Council to vote on whether or not the project should proceed would be when, and if, the Council decides to reconsider the project and directs staff to place the matter on an upcoming Council agenda. This is a copy, by the way, of what I've provided the media. If you have any questions, please let me know. Lee Price, CMC City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo Iprice@slocitv.org 805.781.7104 >>><ANCARTER@aol.com>01/04/04 10:58AM>>> Dear Council Members: I'm excited that you have decided to bring Bridge Street back for discussion at your next meeting. I hope you will be able to provide direction to the applicants so that this project in a revised form can come back to you for approval. I'm previously written Ken Schwartz and Allen Settle suggesting a possible compromise. I thought I would write all of you about it. It's seems to me that Units 1-8 (between the creek and Bridge Street) drew the most concerns. My suggestion would be to simply eliminate those units, develop a better entrance to the project(wider street with sidewalk and parking as suggested by Dave Romero), and proceed with the project as is south of the creek. This would leave 14 residences (and 18 dwelling units since four residences have secondary units). There would be three studio condos; six 3-bdr.condos; four 4-bdr. condos each with a secondary unit; and the existing residence. There would be four affordable residences --two studios&two 3-bdr.condos.. The primary residences would all be owner-occupied per the development's CC& R's. The four secondary units would be rentable by the owners of the primary Lee Price- Re Bridge Street _ Page 2 f units. To accomplish this project,there would still be the need to trade open space below 175'for open space above 175'to reach "no net loss" of open space. The City would gain a sustainable development, but with less affordable units. To me, this is better than nothing. And if you are willing to allow additional development above 175', additional affordable units could be added back. (Staff has identified 185'as an appropriate dividing line.) Andrew Carter